Talk:Natural disaster/Archive 2

Merge

You shoul merge the landslide which is a major disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.108.69 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .

Severe weather should probably be merged here, then perhaps divide this article into sections like "Severe weather", "Geologic hazards", etc. —jiy (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is done with respect to the contents of these articles, there should continue to be two separate articles. The concepts are completely different - it is not even the case that all severe weather causes natural disasters. Peak 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Peak. Please don't merge. -- PFHLai 05:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Peak. Do not merge. If there had to be an umbrella title to merge content into, it should be Natural hazards.166.20.114.10 19:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- oops... sorry. Above comment is mine and needs clarification. I would agree with the proposal if everything were being merged with Natural hazards which redirects to Natural disaster. In other words, I disagree with the merge because of the primary title of this article. Its like the thee falling in the woods making a sound with noone around... if a tornado occurs on the Great Plains, and there is no trailer park in the way, is it a natural disaster? I would say not, but it is a natural hazard. :) Roodog2k (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that merging Severe weather into Natural disaster is inappropriate and am removing the merge notices. However, some issues need to be addressed: (1) As per Roodog2k's comments, Natural disaster should probably be renamed to Natural hazard (currently a redirect). This article only describes the hazards themselves, which may or may not result in a natural disaster. (2) Another article called Extreme weather exists, which lists historical natural disasters. This is the kind of information that would ideally belong in Natural disaster, so it should be moved here. (3) Severe weather is simply a list of links and is largely redundant with this article. I suggest converting it into a category instead. —jiy (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment

Wikipedia:Article assessment has just started, and the topic under assessment is natural disasters. Please take a look. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 28 articles submitted for assessment. If you want to help out come on over - you only have to assess one to help! violet/riga (t) 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural disasters that are affecting most parts of the world not require to be economic disasters but rather should engage policy frameworks. Hurricane Harvey, Irma and Maria have affected most of the communities with a negative impact to the people. Various storm related disruptions will have a profound effect and the rebuilding process may face a lot of hurdles in return. Storms that are taking place are bound not to alter the material course of the region and give the national economy a new picture/face. The medium term that is n existence cannot be affected by the storms that are taking place in the regions.

What is going to be witnessed in the course of time is a robotic boost in the rebuilding process due to effect of storms. Economic growth that is going to rise is due to destruction but not a planned growth with a stronger base. Employment culture will be strengthened not faster but with a slower pace. Inflation will be raised due to higher prices of gasoline that will be experienced but this will be on a temporary basis. Rise in percentage after the aftermath of the storm is critical due to changes in the inflation rates that are being experienced, it good to be objective on the economic changes that will take place in the region but rather temporal.

Long terms effects of economic changes will affect the tourism in Florida and also give a positive indication on growth that is being seen. Economic changes that are being seen are more fundamental for the rebuilding process but will not have a stronger weight. Rebuilding process is different from building process thus the economic boom that is been seen should not be praised

as a new picture. Storms are disasters that destroy and make economic process that were meant to build to be derailed and collapsed. ..(17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malha10 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I failed this article because it does not cite its sources. To be honest, this looks more like a portal than an article as such, but if we are going to treat it as an article, it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Fieari 17:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the references formatting (I believe someone had added in the sources). I think myself that the "portal" type is appropriate for this topic, because I think it's hard to write a coherent article on such a diverse subject. Walkerma 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demotion of Class

I have demoted the assesment of this article from Class = A (date June 22, 2006) to Class = B (status September 5, 2006). Some topics have been added, but are not (shortly) explained. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

review question (up to A again?)

Waitak asked for my opinion on this article, and if it was up to A again. My conclusion would be .. not yet, but getting there (though I realise that it is in a similar state as when it acquired A-status the previous time; I have also asked Martin Walker to have a look at it as well).

when going throug morons, that it could as well be called natural hazard, which is not the same. I am working in a chemical lab, and there the chance on a 'disaster' is defined as the product of 'the hazard of a project' and 'the chance of it happening' (the chance I cut myself on a piece of glass is big, but the hazard can be considered low (as long as cuts are not in arteries), the chance of me blowing up a reaction with sodium azide is small (I hardly use it, try to avoid it, and using my knowledge I apply extra safety measures, take more care and avoid dangerous situations), but the hazard is huge (explosions cause a lot of damage, even on laboratory scale)) .. to me that is not yet clear from the article. The intro sentence would not be correct, technically, both the hazard as the chance can be influenced by people, so there may be a third factor there, and a disaster taking place in a place where no people live is still a disaster for wildlife (but it may be that the definition is different). As an example: another ice-age would be a big hazard (I would give it a 8 or 9 on a scale of 1-10), but the chance of happening tomorrow is quite small (between 0-1) .. Hence, not really something to worry about. Also things to consider in the article may be the predictability of hazards &c. I think it would be good if the article would elaborate on this a bit more (though I already see it is going to be controversial). (copied from user talk:Waitak and slightly adapted) I hope this helps improving the article, but feel free to ignore me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Hazards should be a seperate article!!

The points that Dirk Beetstra made in Oct 2006 are very valid. I've recently completed my dissertation on natural hazard assessment, and done work with a leading researcher in the field (Dr D Dominey-Howes), and have thus become very pedantic about defining hazard/risk/vulnerability/disaster...etc correctly.

I'm presuming the lack of recent activity on this page means that I will not offend anyone if I split this into two articles? Let me know if not!

I'll start by creating a new Natural Hazards page by simply ripping the Natural Hazards section of this page, and then I'll work on the definitions - I've got some good stuff in my dissertation introduction, that is important knowledge that I'm more than willing to impart for free!

All suggestions welcome :-) --Ragdoll1984 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the copying of text out to natural hazards and then the removal of the same text from this article. I don't think changes on that scale should be undertaken without discussion (and so i've reverted). I'm sure we have discussed this prior (maybe not on this page, so i'm trying to find it). For my part I don't have an issue with a 'natural hazards' page, but i do believe that hazards and disasters should be kept together, to avoid repetition. I think the answer, if you feel it is warranted, is to improve this article to make the separation. If you split them, then confusion for the reader is inevitable, as a disaster is just a phase of a hazard. This article could sit at either disaster or at hazard, but i think fits better at disaster, as this is the more recognised form.

To that end, i suggest we request deletion on 'natural hazards', improve the article we have, and decide what name the final article should go by (even the slightly wordy but compromise, 'natural hazards and disasters' with a link from both places. Owain.davies 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be discussed first. On the positive side, I appreciate Ragdoll1984 mentioning it here before doing it. On the down side, I think that it would have been a better idea to give it a few days to see what people had to say before diving in. so I'm also inclined to agree with Owain.davies that splitting them, while technically correct, is likely to confuse the reader, and that we need to be a bit more thoughtful about a solution. Waitak 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wise input on this... My apologies for diving in there, I should have given people a chance to discuss: got a bit carried away with myself, and will not do it again. Sorry guys.

I understand now that it could be confusing for someone with limited knowledge of the topic to stumble across separate articles with the split information. I support Owain.davies's latter idea to change the title to 'natural hazards and disasters', as this would correctly define the content of the original page 'natural disasters', without splitting said content up, or placing an unbalanced emphasis on disaster or hazard.

Content wise, I believe the page could be improved upon, and I would like to have a try at this. But rather than go straight into editing the actual page (which I foolishly did last time), would you recommend I produce a preview of my suggestion/s on my userpage? Unfortunately I'll be going on holiday for a while in a few days, but would like to work on this mini-project when I return. I've dug out the lit review that I used for my dissertation which has some good explanations and definitions for hazard/vulnerability/risk(..of disaster) which are fundemental to an understanding of natural hazards and disasters and thier causes and effects. These could be re-worded and added, and I also have some ideas about simple diagrams/tables that show, for example, further ways hazards can be categorised (e.g. rapid vs slow onset, controllable vs immutable events...etc). --Ragdoll1984 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do want you to be bold... how dramatic are the changes that you have in mind? Personally, I'd say go for it (within all of the normal guidelines), but be prepared for others to hack away at what you write! I'd love to see improvements to the article. Anybody else have an opinion? Waitak 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Waitak, be bold. Remember you are writing for a general audience, but don't be afraid of being technical as long as you explain it. And don't be upset when others edit it! I would just say that if you want to change the entire structure and you're not sure if it fits, just mention that first here, but if you're happy its an improvement, best of luck! Owain.davies 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just one more thing as it's from your thesis - make sure you read Wikipedias policy on no original research, verifability and citations before editing. Anything you put here must be from another published source (and i'm afraid your thesis doesn't count) so if you reached new original conclusions in your thesis, and it hasn't been published, then we can't have them written here, but if another published author said it, then we can! A little complicated i'm afraid, but it will stop some of the the most common reasons for your changes being reversed! Owain.davies 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks immensley for your helpful suggestions - really made a newbie feel accepted, cheers! The final info on 'no original research'... etc is very handy. Will make sure I don't accidentaly slip any of my own opinions in. But I will be working from my lit review section - so any statement of fact will be from published research, so fingers crossed x. And no hard feelings if it's ripped to shreds!! Thanks again --Ragdoll1984 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hazard vs. disaster discussion has been made at WP:DM as well. There are several other articles that are affected, e.g. man-made disaster. This particular article is in my opinion already written about natural hazards - although several disasters are listed as examples. My suggestion is to rename the article to Natural hazards and create a new article at Natural disaster that basically is a list of natural disasters. What else could an article on natural disasters contain? Ragdoll1984, congratulations on completing your dissertation. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that an article on Natural hazards has been created, I will be bold and align the two subjects. This means that the article on Natural disasters will be a de facto list of natural disaster and that the article on natural hazards will be an overview and introduction to threats like earthquakes, tornadoes etc. If anyone objects, please do so soon on my talkpage. I will implement the change today. --rxnd (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstorms?

shouldn't thunderstorms be included. Personally, the only way I've been affected is that my lights go out. However, I have heard of an incedent where a family reunion was hit by lightning and over 30 were killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishvara7 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstorms can be found in the natural hazards article. This article is on disasters caused by hazards. The thunderstorm entry that was here did not contain any information on disasters and was removed. If you know of any wiki articles on thunderstorm disasters that could be linked to, you should add the thunderstorm heading with links to the relevant articles. --rxnd (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

m , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.241.48 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a natural disaster?

Why are famines and epidemics listed as "natural disasters"? They are caused by socioeconomic structures. Is the 2008 Sichuan earthquake a "natural disaster" if it was, as many scientists believe, human-made?--87.162.34.48 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In modern times, the divide between natural, man-made and man-accelerated or compounded is quite difficult to draw. You could argue that disasters only occur due to human activity - if nobody was there, then no-one would be affected, and it would be an event, not a disaster. It might be worth drawing this out more in the article, but i'm not sure we can set a definitive line. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the term natural disaster is wrong!:

There are no "natural disasters"! There are ONLY "natural hazards"!

A disaster is the occurrence of an extreme hazard event (natural or technological) that impacts on vulnerable communities, causing substantial damage, disruption and possible casualties, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using it's own resources. The impact of a disaster is influenced by the degree of the community/households vulnerability to the hazard, which is not natural, but socio-economical and political! Therefore I question herewith the whole article under the useless term "natural disaster". Perhaps the article should just be called "disaster" and then subsections made which explain different kinds of disasters, e.g. disasters caused by natural phenomena as it is already described in the article, and disasters caused by humans, e.g. nuclear incidents etc.

I understand the intentions of the article describing only the natural part of disasters, but the term natural disasters is just wrong. The article should be merged with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disasters and with this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_disasters and perhaps even this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_hazard All articles make the same mistakes and tell that there are "natural disasters"! From a scientific point of view this is wrong! Sorry for this hash critics but no offence meant!

Other opinions about this issue from some experts?

81.11.190.180 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemics

Why is SARS even mentioned in the epidemic/pandemic section, with only 774 confirmed human deaths worldwide during the outbreak? Is it because of the media-induced paranoia around it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexo (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) As far as i know i think a Natural Disaster is a Disaster that occurs Naturally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex320 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

natural disaster

how can we prevent a natural disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.157.10.71 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Thats what all the Scientists and the planet is thinking!! Otherwise we would never have any disasterz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex320 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spoilage of landscape

causes of natural disaster on land

Drought is the worst Natural disaster

Drought is really the worst disaster and farmers see it first. It is so because loss of stock,loss of stock feed(grass etc),fires,no water,unemployment and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.218.64 (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

When I click on each of the references, I do not end up at the intended reference siteSongofexperience (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External link recommendation

I recommend adding this to External Links: Live updating list of latest global natural disasters - Reliefweb --Snarkosis (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Nowhere is it mentioned that global warming increases the amount of natural disasters. 91.182.144.170 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Effects of global warming, Regional effects of global warming, Long-term effects of global warming, etc ... Also of interest may be the Stern Review, Requiem for a Species, The Age of Stupid, Paul Collier's book The Plundered Planet, ... 99.181.134.246 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this sea of blue in aid of, and why are you talking to yourself? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you 91.182.144.170, Art? Talk. 99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for accusing you (the floating 99 anon) from being 91.182.144.170. "170" is an SPA with a different purpose than you have usually shown. (And he's not me, either.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "accusation" appears to be Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (SPA) ... evidence, or lack of self-reflection, Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin? 99.35.15.215 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you have multiple purposes; WP:OVERLINKing common terms, adding tangential links to articles and/or concepts you consider important (the first one I noticed was 350.org, and the current one is Planetary boundaries), removing linkages from redlinks with possibilities, and general accusation of anyone who removes your edits of being an agent of someone or other. It's incorrect to imply that you are an SPA, just an editor with few constructive edits, many neutral edits, and many harmful edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Harmful" to who or what, Art? 99.181.150.8 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful to Wikipedia's purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia:Purpose ? 99.56.122.17 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you opposing Denis Diderot or Larry Sanger, Art? 99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Jimmy Wales? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I see you are implicitly admitting that all you IPs are the same person) Yes, WP:Purpose is what I meant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot "implicitly" admit, to admit is by clearly explicit ... Can you explain your conflict with WP:Purpose, or is this just another one of your blurts, Art? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All you IPs added your comment at the same indentation level. Most sensible editors on Wikipedia only do that if they are amplifying their own comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade

I've just taken a look at the article's class, and even though it was already downgraded from A-class, I'm going to downgrade it even more. Checking it against the B-class criteria:

1. The article is suitable referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

As most of the sections in this article are completely unsourced, this article clearly fails this part of the criteria.

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

Many sections, such as hailstorm, fires, famine and avalanches, are too short, even if they provide a link to the main article. The article needs expansion overall.

3. The article has a defined structure.

I can see no problems with the structure.

4. The article is reasonably well-written.

The article could probably use a copyedit for things like flow and comma usage, but overall I'd say that it passes this, although barely.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

Given that I've assessed the article as failing 2 and almost failing another, I am lowering the class of this article from B-class to C-class. --Slon02 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential WSJ resources, 2011 most costly year for catastrophes on record

Disaster Losses Hit Record Levels in 2011 by Erik Holm and Leslie Scism 16.December.2011, excerpt ...
The disasters that plagued the globe this year will send 2011 into the record books as the most costly year for catastrophes on record. Japan's powerful tsunami, earthquakes in New Zealand, floods in Thailand and a series of severe tornadoes in the U.S. all contributed to $350 billion in disaster losses, according to a new estimate from reinsurance company Swiss Re AG. The long list of calamities crippled factories and cut supply chains, rippling through the world's economies. In Christchurch, New Zealand, entire city blocks remain uninhabitable; in Alabama and Missouri, neighborhoods have been wiped off the map. Insurance and ...
Disaster Losses Hit Record Levels in 2011 December/16/2011 10:30:00 AM "The disasters that plagued the globe this year will send 2011 into the record books as the most costly year for catastrophes on record... Paul Vigna discussed on Markets Hub."

See Economics of global warming for example. 99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) 99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Health disasters"

Are "health disasters" such as epidemics really natural disasters? Google "epidemics natural disasters" and you'll see most sources draw a distinction, even if recommended reactions to either one may be similar. I can understand the argument for epidemics as "natural" disasters since they're caused by naturally occurring bacteria and viruses, but by that logic, why are human actions (e.g., wars, massacres) not also "natural"? And for what it's worth, the Library of Congress Subject Headings don't classify epidemics as a type of natural disaster. I don't think this section belongs in the article, except perhaps for topics such as epidemics after natural disasters (the first hit from the aforementioned Google search). Natural disasters can enable more rapid spread of epidemics or hamper responses to them, but I think it's inaccurate to classify epidemics as a type of natural disaster. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Natural Disaster?

Definition from Dictionary.com: any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences, such as avalanche, earthquake, flood, forest fire, hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, and volcanic eruption Click Here to see page. ♥♥♥♥♥This page helped me a little bit. But I liked the Earthquakes page better. This page had so less information.♥♥♥♥♥